Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2007
Cross-validation of the 20- versus 30-s Wingate anaerobic test.
Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effect of Listening to Music on Wingate Anaerobic Test Performance. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- The Effect of Eight-Week Sprint Interval Training on Aerobic Performance of Elite Badminton Players.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Trial
- Effect of protein quality on recovery after intense resistance training.European journal of applied physiology · 2016Trial
- Optimising Ankle Foot Orthoses for children with cerebral palsy walking with excessive knee flexion to improve their mobility and participation; protocol of the AFO-CP study.BMC pediatrics · 2013Trial
- LEARN 2 MOVE 7-12 years: a randomized controlled trial on the effects of a physical activity stimulation program in children with cerebral palsy.BMC pediatrics · 2010Trial
- The impact of the Wingate test on anaerobic power in the lower limbs of athletes with varied duration and load.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Pre-exercise isomaltulose intake affects carbohydrate oxidation reduction during endurance exercise and maximal power output in the subsequent Wingate test.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Power profiling and the power-duration relationship in cycling: a narrative review.European journal of applied physiology · 2022Review
- Effects of Light Pedaling Added to Contrast Water Immersion for Recovery after Exhaustive Exercise.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Low Volume, Home-Based Weighted Step Exercise Training Can Improve Lower Limb Muscle Power and Functional Ability in Community-Dwelling Older Women.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Article
- Changes in Non-Enzymatic Antioxidants in the Blood Following Anaerobic Exercise in Men and Women.PloS one · 2015Article
- Reliability and validity of a 20-s alternative to the wingate anaerobic test in team sport male athletes.PloS one · 2014Article
- Article
- The measurement of maximal (anaerobic) power output on a cycle ergometer: a critical review.BioMed research international · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The 30-s Wingate anaerobic test (30-WAT) is the most widely accepted protocol for measuring anaerobic response, despite documented physical side effects. Abbreviation of the 30-WAT without loss of data could enhance subject compliance while maintaining test applicability. The intent of this study was to quantify the validity of the 20-s Wingate anaerobic test (20-WAT) versus the traditional 30-WAT. Fifty males (mean +/- SEM; age = 20.5 +/- 0.3 years; Ht = 1.6 +/- 0.01 m; Wt = 75.5 +/- 2.6 kg) were randomly selected to either a validation (N = 35) or cross-validation group (N = 15) and completed a 20-WAT and 30-WAT in double blind, random order on separate days to determine peak power (PP; W kg(-1)), mean power (MP; W kg(-1)), and fatigue index (FI; %). Utilizing power outputs (relative to body mass) recorded during each second of both protocols, a non-linear regression equation (Y (20WAT+10 )= 31.4697 e(-0.5)[ln(X (second)/1174.3961)/2.6369(2)]; r (2) = 0.97; SEE = 0.56 W kg(-1)) successfully predicted (error approximately 10%) the final 10 s of power outputs in the cross-validation population. There were no significant differences between MP and FI between the 20-WAT that included the predicted 10 s of power outputs (20-WAT+10) and the 30-WAT. When derived data were subjected to Bland-Altman analyses, the majority of plots (93%) fell within the limits of agreement (+/-2SD). Therefore, when compared to the 30-WAT, the 20-WAT may be considered a valid alternative when used with the predictive non-linear regression equation to derive the final power output values.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17429677What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.